Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-10 have been rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CN202211516102X on 20 November 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202211516102X application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method or apparatus, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a method for calculating the terminal voltage of the lithium battery based on the electrochemical model.
These independent claim recites the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
S1: constructing the electrochemical model of the lithium battery, and dividing the lithium-ion battery into three domains comprising an anode domain, a separator domain, and a cathode domain, wherein the three domains respectively represent an anode, a separator, and a cathode of the lithium battery
S3: obtaining solid-phase potential distribution data of the anode and the cathode, based on discrete data of the liquid-phase potential, overpotential, and open-circuit voltage of the anode and the cathode of the lithium battery; and
S4: obtaining the terminal voltage of the lithium battery based on the solid-phase potential distribution data of the anode and cathode.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as applying a mental process to a generic computing environment - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2).
These independent claim recites the following steps best characterized as mathematical concepts under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing the abstract idea grouping for mathematical concepts in general:
S2: numerically simulating the electrochemical model in the three domains respectively using Chebyshev spectral method, and obtaining distribution data of a liquid-phase potential, overpotential, and open-circuit voltage of the anode and the cathode respectively.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as representing mathematical relationships - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept of the Chebyshev spectral method.
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept of determining the liquid-phase potential control equation.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept of mapping the Chebyshev points and the liquid-phase potential control equation to a Chebyshev computational interval, and obtaining approximations of the liquid potential at the Chebyshev points corresponding to a said domain.
Dependent claim 5 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept of mapping the spatial coordinate points to the Chebyshev computational interval.
Dependent claim 6 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept determining the jth unit coefficients by solving a system of equations for Ajk.
Dependent claim 7 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept for calculating an approximation for the solid-phase potential.
Dependent claim 8 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept for calculating the terminal voltage from the solid-phase potential.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 9 recites an apparatus with a memory and a processor. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. The specification describes the computer and corresponding hardware as a general purpose computer and does not provide any hardware configurations to support the position that the computer has a non-generic architecture (see the instant specification in ¶ 0071-79 stating “preferably, the processor 72 can be a general processor”). Therefore the use of the computer hardware to perform the method of claim 1 serves as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 9 recites an apparatus with a memory and a processor. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-10 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art:
The ordered combination of limitations in claim 1 stating: S2: numerically simulating the electrochemical model in the three domains respectively using Chebyshev spectral method, and obtaining distribution data of a liquid-phase potential, overpotential, and open-circuit voltage of the anode and the cathode respectively; S3: obtaining solid-phase potential distribution data of the anode and the cathode, based on discrete data of the liquid-phase potential, overpotential, and open-circuit voltage of the anode and the cathode of the lithium battery; and S4: obtaining the terminal voltage of the lithium battery based on the solid-phase potential distribution data of the anode and cathode is free of the prior art.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Bizeray, State and parameter estimation of physics-based lithium-ion battery models, Department of Engineering Science University of Oxford Doctorial Dissertation (2016)[herein after Bizeray] teaching on utilizing the Chebyshev orthogonal collocation method for a P2D electrochemical model for state estimation of a lithium ion battery in the § 3.1 Chebyshev orthogonal collocation on p. 45-47 and in the § 6.1 Summary of dissertation and contributions on p. 138-139
Ajiboye et al., Computationally efficient battery model for microgrid applications using the Chebyshev spectral method, 153 Computers and Chemical Engineering (Oct. 2021) teaching on utilizing the Chebyshev spectral method for determining terminal voltage curves in the § 2.2. Chebyshev spectral method on p. 4 and § Results on p. 6-7
Neither Bizeray nor Ajiboye teach on utilizing the Chebyshev spectral method for determining the terminal voltage from liquid-phase potential, overpotential, and open-circuit voltage of the anode and the cathode utilizing solid-phase potential distribution. Therefore, claims 1-10 are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights